Allowed

Dhananjay S/O. Namdeo Kharade (C-17713) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Jul 2018WP/795/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition quashing orders rejecting a furlough application. It held that pendency of an appeal is not a ground for refusal and a vague adverse police report without specific reasons cannot deny furlough to a convict.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release the petitioner on furlough forthwith upon completion of usual procedure and fulfillment of conditions.

Dhananjay S/O. Namdeo Kharade (C-17713) Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

795.18Cri.WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.795 OF 2018

¶5

Dhananjay s/o.Namdeo Kharade
[C-17713]
Central Prison Yerwada, Pune. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1] The State of Maharashtra Through I.G. Prisons, Pune.

¶8

2] The State of Maharashtra Through D.I.G. Prisons, Pune.

¶9

3] The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent Central Prison, Yerwada, Pune. RESPONDENTS

¶10

...

¶11

Mr.R.A.Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Y.G.Gujarathi, APP for Respondent/State

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶14

 V.K.JADHAV,JJ.

¶15

Reserved on : 09.07.2018
 Pronounced on : 12.07.2018

¶16

JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:

¶17

1]Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶18

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶19

2]This Petition is filed praying

¶20

795.18Cri.WP

¶21

¶22

therein to quash and set aside the orders
dated 21.05.2018 and 22.03.2018 passed by

¶23

respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively, thereby
seeking direction to respondent no.3 to
release the petitioner on furlough for 28
days on execution of personal bond and
surety.

¶24

3]It is the case of the petitioner
that on 30.06.2015, he has been convicted by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar,
for the offence punishable under Sections 302

¶25

and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and
pursuant to it, he is undergoing life
imprisonment at Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.
The petitioner filed an application praying

¶26

therein to release him on furlough to
respondent no.3. After receipt of the said
application, respondent no.3 forwarded the

¶27

same to respondent no.2. On 22.03.2018,
respondent no.2 rejected the application of
the petitioner for furlough on the ground

¶28

¶29

795.18Cri.WP

¶30

that his Appeal is pending before the High
Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner filed an Appeal before respondent
no.1. By order dated 21.05.2018, respondent
no.1 was pleased to reject the said appeal.
Hence this Writ Petition.

¶31

4]Learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

petitioner submits that Rule 3 [b] 11 of the
Government Notification dated 26th August,
2016 issued by the Department of Home has

¶33

been withdrawn by the State Government, and
as a result merely because Appeal of the
convict is pending in the Higher Court or any

¶34

other Court filed against him, either by the
Central Government or State Government, is no

¶35

ground to reject the application to release
the convict on furlough. This position is not
disputed by the learned APP. It is submitted

¶36

that another ground to reject the application

¶37

of the petitioner to release him on furlough
is an adverse police report. It is submitted

¶38

795.18Cri.WP

¶39

¶40

that the concerned Police Officer has given

¶41

casual report without stating therein any

¶42

reason for giving such adverse report. It is
submitted that the petitioner was released on
furlough on as many as 11 occasions and every

¶43

time he reported on time, except on one
occasion when he reported late by two days.

¶44

Therefore, he submits that the Petition
deserves to be allowed.

¶45

5]On the other hand, learned APP

¶46

appearing for the respondent-State relying
upontheaffidavit-in-replyofthe

¶47

respondents submits that the petitioner was
released on furlough leave on 23.04.2016 by

¶48

the order of Deputy Inspector General of

¶49

Prisons, Western Region, Yerwada, Pune. He
was supposed to surrender to the Jail on
21.05.2016. He did not surrender within time,

¶50

hence Crime No.57/2016 was registered against

¶51

him at MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar, for
the offence under Section 224 of the IPC. Due

¶52

795.18Cri.WP

¶53

¶54

to misconduct of the petitioner, he was
transferred from Visapur Open District Prison
totheYerwadaCentralPrisonon

¶55

administrative ground on 17.10.2017 to
undergo life imprisonment. It is further
submitted that the application was sent to

¶56

the Competent Authority i.e. the Deputy
Inspector General of Prisons, Western Region,
Yerwada, Pune and the copy of the application
forwarded to Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Ahmednagar for police report. Thereafter, the
adverse police report was received. Due to
the adverse police report and pendency of the

¶57

case against the petitioner, the prayer to
release petitioner on furlough was rejected
by the Dy.Inspector General of Prisons,
Western Region, Yerwada, Pune, keeping in

¶58

view the provisions of Rule 4 of the
Notification dated 26.08.2016, when the
prisoners shall not be granted furlough; sub-
rule [11] whose appeal in conviction in

¶59

795.18Cri.WP

¶60

¶61

higher court of any other cases filed against
them, either by central Government or any of
the State Government in any of the courts are
pending and for which bail is not granted to
him / her by the concerned courts.

¶62

6]It is further submitted that being
aggrieved by order dated 22.03.2018, the
petitioner has preferred an Appeal before the
Additional Director General of Police
[Prisons], State of Maharashtra, Pune. The
said Appeal was rejected by order dated
29.05.2018. The Notification dated 26.08.2016
is amended by the Government Notification
dated 16.04.2018 and the provision in the
Notification dated 26.08.2016, Rule 4 sub-
rule [11] is deleted. In view of the
Notification dated 16.04.2018, the petitioner

¶63

may file fresh application for furlough
leave, which would be decided according to
the provisions made in the Notification dated
16.04.2018.

¶64

¶65

795.18Cri.WP

¶66

7]We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and the learned
APP appearing for the respondent-State. With
their able assistance, we have perused the
grounds taken in the Petition, annexures
thereto, reply filed by the respondents and

¶67

the unreported judgment in the case of Lala @ Anurag son of Prakash Asare Vs. State of Maharashtra & another in Criminal Writ

¶68

Petition No.276 of 2012, decided on 11th June,
2012. It is pertinent to mention that

¶69

furlough and parole are granted to the

¶70

convicts to enable the inmate to maintain
continuity with his family and deal with
family matters, to save him from evil effects

¶71

of continuous prison life, to enable him to

¶72

maintain and develop his self confidence and
to enable him to develop constructive hope
and active interest in life. It is admitted

¶73

position that the petitioner is in jail since

¶74

795.18Cri.WP

¶75

¶76

the year 2004, and he was released on as many

¶77

as 11 occasions, and except on one occasion

¶78

when he reported late by 2 days, that too suo

¶79

motu , on all other occasions the petitioner has reported back within time to the jail. It further appears that when the petitioner reported late by two days on 23^rd April, 2016, after availing furlough leave, the offence was registered against him, and the remissions might have been deducted for overstay of two days. It is also important to

¶80

mention that on the said occasion also, the petitioner reported back suo motu . It is also

¶81

relevant to mention that merely because
appeal of the petitioner is pending before

¶82

the Higher Court, is no ground to refuse him
furlough. The police report does not indicate
any specific reason why the petitioner cannot

¶83

be released on furlough. Admittedly, the
petitioner was released on furlough leave on
2nd March, 2017 and reported back on time.

¶84

795.18Cri.WP

¶85

¶86

The said release was after the offence was
registered against the petitioner for his
overstay of two days in the year 2016. So far
as the police report is concerned, the same
does not indicate any specific reason to
refuse furlough leave to the petitioner.

¶87

8]For the reasons afore-stated, we are
inclinedtoallowthisPetition.

¶88

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause-B. On completion of
usualprocedureandfulfillmentof

¶89

conditions, the respondents shall release the
petitioner on furlough forthwith.

¶90

9]The Rule is made absolute on above

¶91

terms. The Writ Petition stands disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶92

[V.K.JADHAV] [S.S.SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶93

DDC

Dhananjay S/O. Namdeo Kharade (C-17713) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay S/O. Namdeo Kharade (C-17713) v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh S/O. Chandraprakash Dixit (C-6195) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivraj S/O. Bhagwan Patil Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and Others

Shaikh Chand S/O. Shaikh Ismail Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Divisions, Aurangabad and Others

Dattu Baburao Pawar (C-9529) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant S/O. Khandu Badgujar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Bansi Alhat, C.NO.16399 Vs the State of Maharashtra